The Alternative Election 2019: It's the morning after, again

The country didn't suddenly becomes heartless overnight. Sorry, I should rephrase that. I don't believe that Britain is (enitrely) a place of selfish, intolerant, poor-bashing Tories. And, really, the statistics agree with me on that.

More people voted for progressive ideas (Labour-Lib Dems-Greens) than voted for the conservative ideas (Tories-BXP), both in the UK as a whole and more narrowly in England. And I'm inclined to believe that the conservative vote was artificially inflated by Brexit, the divisive issue of the day.

For those who see "Getting Brexit Done" as the main issue, it is not a simple matter to write them off as secret Tories voting for privatisation. I'm sure many of them want to save the NHS. I'm sure many of them care about the least well off.

But are electoral system is flawed and our institutions painfully rigged up for hostility to radical progressive change. And last night, that resulted in Boris winning 50 more seats and a majority with an increase in support of just 1%.

More damaging for progressives was that Labour lost 8% of their vote compared to 2017, which spread out across the other parties. Conservative gains where less impactful than - or perhaps rather depended upon - Labour losing votes to other parties.

The stats present a picture of progressives playing the electoral game less well than the Conservatives.

Part of that, but only a part, was Brexit. The Conservatives identified themselves clearly with one polarised side of the debate and got their message through. Labour hedged bets.

But the reasons people voted for Brexit were more complicated than people perhaps like to admit - and Brexit supporters, even in the North, were more middle class than people like to admit.

Sure, former industrial towns in the North voted for Brexit, and then for the Tories yesterday. Yet, as Anoosh Chakelian of the New Statesman wrote, it's a long time now since these places were industrial. I'll be keeping an eye out for a demographic analysis of Tory voters in the North.

However, none of this will be terribly reassuring for those who wake up to the terror of a five year Tory majority.

Those people are on my mind this morning. I think those people were on George Monbiot's mind too when he put together a thread of what we can do next - stressing that community action becomes imperative now, to protect as many people as we can.

And that, I think, feeds how progressives fight back politically.

 Something has to change to make the outcome different next time. I think Monbiot is right, we need to start in our communities. And I think Chakelian is right, too: Labour's problems in the North didn't start with Corbyn and won't end there.

People are terrified by their declining living standards. Others are helpless, their living standards having hit rock bottom with food banks and mounting debts. We need to start organising help for those most in need and maybe find there, or build there, a sense of optimism with which to appeal to the 'squeezed middle', to bring them back into a progressive coalition.

For that, progressive politicians need to get their heads out of Westminster. Labour vs Lib Dem vs Green infighting serves no one but the Tories. They need open, amiable leaders committed, not just willing, to cooperating to offer something optimistic.

And I think maybe more needs to be done on top of that. This can't just be won in Westminster and on social media. There needs to be some tangible movement behind it.

A proper electoral alliance. A proper progressive front. And beneath it all, community action. Municipal movements, rallying individual, concerned citizens together with campaign groups on homelessness and rent, payday lending and benefits debt, on all these cause and more than leave me cold and afraid.

The government for the next five years is not going to represent the majority. Well, nothing new there. But there are plenty of people - the most vulnerable, mostly - who depend upon the state.

We need to do what we can to try and pick up the slack for those people and start building towards winning back the support they need and put that central to our thinking as we move forwards.

The Alternative Election 2019: Liberal Democrats, 'Stop Brexit'

The Liberal Democrat offering is lean, moderate, costed and will likely deliver measured but, definite, progressive outcomes. But that may not be radical enough for many who have yet to forget, or forgive, The Coalition.

The Liberal Moment in British politics has been a major disappointment for progressives. For many, disaffected with the authoritarianism of Blair's New Labour and distressed by Labour and the Tories each holding one party control over portions of the country, the Lib Dems offered a better way of delivering policies ostensibly similar to those of Labour.

Getting a taste of government changed things for the Lib Dems. And, for many, it crystalised the priorities of the faction that put Nick Clegg into the party leadership and continues to exert a strong influence as Jo Swinson leads them into a general election for the first time.

When push came to shove, the Lib Dems where willing to sacrifice a lot of other policies, and to break a very particular promise on ending higher education tuition fees, for their priority of boosting early years education funding.

Few have been happy with the compromises the party leadership has been willing to make, but the party has been held together by what has always held the party together: their focus on liberty - on civil rights, the rights of refugees and immigrants, of LGBTQ+ people, of minorities.

But that assumption, that the wings of the party will be held together by this commonality, has begun to feel like something being tested to breaking - with some senior party members, such as party LBGT chair Jennie Rigg, quitting as, in their single-minded quest to "Stop Brexit", the leadership has welcomed defecting MPs into the parliamentary party - no matter how scant their record may be in support of unifying liberal issues, or in the case of Phillip Lee, how in opposition to liberal social politics their record may be.

What are the Lib Dems offering?

Unsurprisingly, that has lead to cancelling Brexit being the central theme and focus of their manifesto - with even a second referendum now being seen as a wasteful concession to a costly distraction. Beyond cancelling Brexit, and reinvesting money dedicated to it into key public services, the Lib Dem manifesto presents four key priorities.

First, to borrow and raise tax to fund the decarbonising of the economy and to tackle the affects of climate change. That includes a £10bn seed for a renewable power fund that would seek additional private sector contributions (not unlike the previous Lib Dem idea of the Green Investment Bank), and £15bn to make homes greener to tackle energy bills and fuel poverty.

The idiosyncratic Liberal Democrat pitch of a penny on tax returns, this time for an earmarked £7bn rise to fund social care and mental health services provision. The manifesto hints at more of this use of 'earmarking' to come, with a consultation on a specific-to-health tax.

As you may now come to expect from the Lib Dems, they intend to put more funding into education. A boost of £10bn for schools is an expected cherry at the heart of plan for reforms to education that shows, perhaps, more depth than any other part of the manifesto - and includes rethinking how frequently and heavily we subject school children to examinations and standardised testing.

Less obvious a pitch, perhaps, is the Lib Dems making their pitch on lifelong learning - matching stride and direction with other progressive parties - that offers a £10,000 per person adult skills & training budget. This may well be considered thin fayre considering the anger that followed when their leadership dropped their opposition to higher education tuition fees.

Through these pledges, there is a leanness to see in the Lib Dem manifesto, especially in how ideas are presented, with seemingly every penny accounted for and balanced. That will turn off many looking for a radical shift - and will be seen as a legacy, or perhaps a hangover, from the Nick Clegg era of 'Equidistance' that pitches at splitting the difference between Labour and the Tories.

This can be further seen in a couple of policies.

Alongside the Lib Dems pitch of 300,000 new homes a year, is a plan to help younger first time renters handle exorbitant deposits with a loan rather than reform - though that does need to be taken in the context of their long term Rent to Own proposal, where rent contributes towards eventual homeownership.

The second is the, shall we say, restrained way in which the party has approached widespread calls for at least a trial of the basic income welfare policy. Their plan, which actually comes from their conference and doesn't seem to have found a place in the final manifesto, is instead for a pilot scheme to trial a guaranteed minimum - more of a 'top up' approach, akin to Gordon Brown's tax credits.

It is worth pointing out, however, that in their analysis of the welfare offering of the main parties, the Resolution Foundation ranked the Lib Dem offering as the best for the poorest - ahead of Labour.

Conclusions

Behind the scenes, the Liberal Democrats are a broad and vibrant party with some particularly radical progressive factions - the Social Liberal Forum comes to mind. Those supporters champion a basic income, land taxes, an expansion of cooperative workplaces, and a government that is more interventionist in pursuing liberty.

But these elements have not, for some time, been representated in the party leadership in a way that reflects how these radical groups are supported among the party's members and supporters.

The Liberal Democrat leadership adheres instead to a lean, dry, and 'sensible' support for the free market - and on how therein to maximise the outcomes for people, within that capitalist framework. That means talking balanced budgets, prioritising education and tweaks, not upheavals, to the capitalist model.

When it comes down to it, the Liberal Democrat pitch - though producing some practical progressive outcomes - may simply lack the radical appeal for the times, not least with the party's damaged reputation.

And so the party will likely be swallowed by the two-party battle between Labour and the Tories, rendering even their best policies futile. Their best hope is taking enough seats to be a player in a hung Parliament.

The Alternative Election 2019: The Labour Party, 'Real Change'

There are headline grabbing, radical changes in the Labour manifesto. And yet in some policy areas, like welfare, they're less progressive than the Lib Dems - that is the paradox long at the heart of the Labour Party, that will stay hard to challenge so long as they remain simply the best shot at ousting the Tories from government.

For Labour, their priority is how they are pitching to people that they can take back control of their lives. The starting point for that in the Labour manifesto is for the wealthiest, those earning more than £80,000, to pay more in tax and for the government to borrow a sum of around £500bn, at the historically low interest rates available, to fund some hugely transformative policies - including the ambition to "make Britain’s public services the best and most extensive in the world". 

How does Labour plan to do that?

Well, public ownership is a big feature of their manifesto. On that front, in all parts, this manifesto goes further than in 2017. From bus networks returning to public ownership, to rail as the franchises expire, to water and energy, and putting workers on company boards, this is a manifesto that wants to undo the privatisations overseen by the Tories in the 1970s and 1980s.

Together with a boost in priority for environmentalism, the twin themes of Public Ownership and Green Industry run through this manifesto, bleeding into most of the policy ideas and frequently being tied one to the other - expressing the idea that the profit motive is destructive to our community and environmental wellbeing.

You can see this in their response to the first of the key progressive priorities: addressing the climate crisis.

On the climate emergency, Labour are promising a Green Industrial Revolution. Of the £400bn that Labour is going to borrow to form it's National Transformation Fund, £250bn is to be directed to Green Transformation - with additional funding coming in the form of lending from the proposed National Investment Bank.

This plan, that appears to be founded entirely on borrowing and lending - with an unspecified amount coming from a windfall tax on oil companies - is how Labour intend to provoke a shift to renewable and low-carbon energy and transport, that delivers net-zero carbon emissions by the 2030s.

Part of the Labour plan to deliver this Green Revolution is to nationalise the energy companies. This goes a step further than what they offered in 2017 (a low-cost rival state-owned supplier), though how this will be funded is left to the reader's assumptions. Readers will likely infer that the money will come from the tax rises on the rich and the intended borrowing - though it is worth keeping in mind that with any nationalisation, the government gains an asset that may ultimately be able to pay for itself.

On health, cutting out private provision is the headline that fits the broader narrative of public control before private profits. Labour promise a 4.3% a year rise in the budget for the health sector - and clearly expect ending outsourcing to private providers to save a significant, if hard to verify, sum of cash to help fund ambitious promises.

There will also be a National Care Service for social care, although the specifics are lacking in the party manifesto - beyond the intention to impose a lifetime cap on personal care costs.

On education, the Labour contribution to the progressive spur of lifelong learning is the National Education Service. At it's core, it represents a massive recruitment drive, with huge numbers of new educators needed to deliver the expansive promises on everything from preschool to adult retraining. These plans come with a lifelong, entitlement to free training up to certain standards and the return of maintenance allowances.

However, the manifesto focuses more on criticising the state of education under the Tories, instead of actually clarifying the detail of changes or how any of this will be paid for - beyond, it is assumed again, that this falls under what Labour hope to pay for with it's tax rise on the richest.

The theme of public ownership is present here too, as Labour promise to abolish tuition fees and engage in a clampdown on private schools - even going so far as to look into integrating them into the comprehensive education system.

Public ownership runs into housing too, as Labour are saying they will build 150,000 social rent homes a years - 100,000 council homes and 50,000 housing association - by the end of a five-year Parliament. And the party commitment to reducing energy consumption, and thus energy bills, by making homes to a greener standard keeps the key Labour themes entwined.

Conclusions

The theme of public ownership and green revolution run through these plans. They are the foundation for an, at times, deeply radical offering.

But there are flaws. The focus on simply undoing the Tories destructive welfare plans, results in Labour offering what is ultimately a less progressive than pitch for welfare reform that what the Lib Dems have offered.

On welfare, however, Labour are promising to run a basic income trial - which is a welfare policy with revolutionary potential should it be implemented, and implemented well.

And then there is the wider context. Labour and Jeremy Corbyn in particular have been besieged by the right-wing press and have found themselves unable to wade out of the antisemitism scandal in which they have sunk.

And Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn wants to stand neutral on the matter, taking no side in a second referendum between whatever he can negotiate in Brussels and the choice to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.

The reality, however, is that for voters the controversies and flaws will simply play a part in a sadly two-dimensional election fight.

Rather than choosing between nationalisation and privatisation, or between radical funding boosts and more austerity, it's likely people will choose between whether they can tolerate more Tory government or can take a chance on what may seem like drastic change.

The fight between Labour and the Tories, Corbyn vs Boris, will dominate the election - and which of them you don't want to win will probably dominate your voting strategy, in a very tactical battle.

The Alternative Election 2019: Conservatives, 'Status Quo'

Boris offers no change, never mind anything transformative. And the promises he does make can't be trusted. Conservative government will most likely continue in the same vein as before - more austerity, more cuts and the cost of it all falling on the most vulnerable.

This is, plain and simple, an argument for voting against the Tories. Why you would be here looking for an endorsement is beyond me. To be clear: you won't find that here. The Conservative and Unionist Party in government has been a disaster.

Austerity has given rise to the return of Dickensian poverty - working poverty and child poverty prominent. Food bank use is through the roof, schools are taking donations and feeding children going hungry. You only need to check out Channel 4 Dispatches to see how the Tories are comfortable with the poorest subsisting.

How do the Tories reply? A meagre 2% or less rise to working age benefits and the carer's allowance. A continuation of welfare policies that will continue to punish the poorest and hurt their wellbeing most.

And all the while our health and social care system is being mismanaged and underfunded, with waiting times now hitting their worst ever level. All the Tories have for an answer is reannouncing old funding as new, funding previously promised and not delivered - that was predicated upon NHS trusts making slashing cuts to their budgets in the first place.

And if the Conservative commitment to austerity, that is destroying the lives of the most vulnerable people, isn't enough to dissuade you from voting for them, maybe the lies are?

Nevermind the well documented fact that Boris lies (or says something racist or sexist) about as often as he opens his mouth. Nevermind that Boris thinks greed and selfishness are good.

Nevermind the Tories' in general governing-by-media approach of announcing and reannouncing the same spending over and again as new to grab headlines. Nevermind the incompetence of the Tories failing to deliver a single one of their pledged new starter homes because they never bothered to take the necessary initial step of passing the bill in Parliament.

Maybe just consider that (in this election, where Boris lied in an interview by saying he's not a liar) the party under his control decided to deceive viewers (that's you, the voting public) of an election debate by renaming their social media account to "factcheckUK" to attack their opponents - in a debate where Boris himself spoke on how little people trust politicians.

The Conservative Manifesto promises no significant change in policy - not that you could trust it, if it did. It's a do nothing manifesto that lets austerity continue indefinitely. The present disaster is lurching towards catastrophe. It's time (long, long overdue) for people to wake up and kick the Tories out.

The Alternative General Election 2019: Progressive parties need to settle their differences

This is another election that will come down to a simple arithmetic: how can progressives prevent another Tory government, led by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That simple arithmetic is given a crudity by the fact that most of the progressive parties do not get along.

It's a particularly extraordinary factor in British politics, when you consider how close our progressive political parties are to one another - in their concerns, in their approach, in their policies. Those crossovers continue into this election.

Progressive Goals

All of the progressive parties share a commitment to tackling the climate crisis, with emissions goals set for the 2030s. The features vary, but include tackling energy costs for households and funding the reorganisation of the energy sector and industry to reduce pollution.

Lifelong learning is also a common feature, committing progressives to spending more to enable people to retrain during their working life, and adapt better as the economy changes.

Across the progressive parties is also an instinct to ease the burden that comes with welfare, including, in some form or another, a trial scheme for a basic income.

And of course, tackling the housing crisis is a key priority for all of them, with each making their pitch for how many and what kind of homes they will build.

As ever though, the parties have their differences. What primarily divides the progressive parties are their jealous priorities - and also their deep seated dislike for one another's approach to politics.

Priorities

For Labour, it is what they call real change - the role that public ownership could and should play in giving people a fair chance at a good life. A possibly expensive policy objective that has riled up a lot of people within and without the party.

For the Greens, it's the climate emergency. The centrepiece to a manifesto with some big commitments is £100bn to reach emissions targets by 2030 - much more ambitious than those of the other parties.

And for the Liberal Democrats, they have made "Stop Brexit" their slogan, and to the annoyance even of some of their own supporters, almost the single issue for which the party now stands - even when they might make meaningful pitches on welfare or education reform.

None of these priorities ought to rule out cooperation, but the mutual antipathy between the parties and their memberships always makes things difficult. But imagine if they could cooperate?

For now, see for yourself how close the two biggest progressive parties get in their manifestos, which we breakdown in these articles below:

Labour manifesto review, 'Real Change';

Liberal Democrats manifesto review, 'Stop Brexit';

and then contrast those with the manifesto, and the record in government, of the Conservatives, 'Status Quo';

How badly do you want the Tories out?

This election has all the makings of another two horse race - however much Jo Swinson may be hoping for a Canadian Liberal scale landslide shift. This country's two-party system is just too hard to crack without extenuating circumstances, and the Lib Dems have made too many people mistrustful.

Which makes Labour's determination to stick to it's majoritarian big tent attitude - even in the Corbyn/Momentum era - all the more absurd. Yes, Britain has a two party system. But it has many more parties, that all gain votes and all have devoted supporters who at times are openly hostile to the big two.

Not working in alliance with the third parties, and not working to break up this inequitable electoral and parliamentary system, is a ludicrous act of self harm by the Labour Party - which clings to the remnants of power, mostly expressed these days in the one-party-state level of control it holds over some communities.

Not that other parties have been displaying much of an appetite for unconditional cooperation. The Lib Dems have been trying to oust Corbyn, or deny him the Premiership, as their price for working with Labour. Meanwhile, the SNP want a second referendum on Scottish Independence as their price - one that is too high for most English parties.

That's not to say there has been no cooperation. Working in a small progressive alliance, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru will probably be able to pick up some crucial seats among the sixty where they are working together. Taking seats away from the Tories, but perhaps also taking seats from Labour.

Labour need to be on the right side of these political alliances if it wants to get into government. The balance of support, in England in particular, means that Labour depend upon tactical voting for them against the Tories, and voters elsewhere leaving the Tories for parties who have a chance to oust them where Labour are outsiders.

Like at the last election, it may be left for ordinary voters, campaign groups and local party associations to work out the cooperation that the national level party leaderships can't if progressives are to oust the Conservatives and their damaging era of austerity and government-by-press-release.

And the damaging era of Tory rule must end. It's been a disaster for the most vulnerable, with the return of Dickensian poverty. Austerity is bad and there is no end in sight under the Tories.

Boris is already demonstrating how his government will be all tell and no show

Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister - a phrase that used to sound like a joke - made a lot of promises in his first speech from Downing Street. His announcement of £1.8bn has been reported as the first down payment on these pledges.

Here-in lies a key sample of what we can expect from Boris Johnson and his verbose new government. A big promise and an announcement, with all the PR trimmings to follow, which on inspection fails to live up to the terms.

All tell and no show. The Boris way.

It's also been the Tories way through all of their time in government, whether under Cameron or May. Announcing old funding again as new funding, relabelling and reannouncing, fiscal politics played out in the media rather than in the treasury. And all the while, the cuts go on.

In the present case, Boris has offered up a lump of extra cash for the NHS. But it isn't what it seems. In fact, the £1bn 'upfront' is money that the government had already promised to the NHS - in exchange for three years of trusts slashing their budgets - only to then block hospitals from spending it.

The second half is for what is know as capital spending, long term investment to pay now for projects that will be ready years from now. This kind of spending is deeply important, but does little for struggling hospitals in the present - and even that sum isn't coming right away.

What the government cares about are the flurry of headlines that follow these press releases - often printed wholly and uncritically in the media. While the front pages tell people what the Tories want them to hear, the analysis is buried and with it the debunking of the government's claims.

These headlines are the heart of a long term government strategy, all about governing by telling and not showing. It has allowed them to slash and slash again at budgets, and the services they fund, and to deflect criticism on to others - mostly the vulnerable, exposed by the Tories' own austerity politics.

Don't be fooled by the headlines. Don't let the Tories, as John Harris puts it, sow "discord and resentment via austerity" only to reap the rewards of the chaos with a sharp PR strategy. If we're not sharper ourselves, we'll face the consequences of Tory disaster politics while they profit.

European Parliament elections 2019: With dangerous times ahead, progressives need to carefully consider their vote

The facts haven't changed. The first referendum had little to do with the lives of working people. It was one lot of middle class who were pro-market liberals arguing with another middle class group of pro-market conservatives. There was no working class option on the ballot.

Remain meant continuing a framework in need of reform, as it wasn't serving Britain's poorest regions. Brexit was a bad joke, offering more of the same, but with less rights, lower standards and a chance for the rich to prey on all of the instability and austerity that would follow.

Two Years On From the Referendum

Of the two choices, Remain was the least worst option - as we spelled out in our guide to the EU Referendum. That hasn't changed and is still the case two years on. Meanwhile, voting for Brexit - even for most of the middle class, never mind working class - is still the turkeys voting for Christmas.

You can see it most clearly in the calls for Leave on 'WTO terms'. The far right charges the European Union with attacking the UK's sovereignty - a claim entirely undermined by the WTO's priorities, of which meddling with domestic lawmaking is paramount to tackling 'non-tariff barriers' to trade, as we debunked in our article on the World Trade Organisation and Trade.

While these two middle class groups argue about which is the best way to make a quick buck, it's the far right who feed on the resulting turmoil. Slick media campaigns, scrubbing their candidates clean for their supporters - covering up racism, intolerance and greed - break traditional editorial filters.

In Britain, that's letting all of the creepy-crawlies come out of the woodwork - the bogeymen are assembling. From the odious charlatan Nigel Farage, to petty thug Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who hides under the disguise "Tommy Robinson", a dangerous crowd are trying to get elected to the European Parliament.

But the danger is amplified by alliance building going on among far right nationalists in the rest of Europe - under Matteo Salvini, Lega leader and Interior Minister in Italy. After years of forcing their way into the system, they're now gathering for a concerted push on what they feel is their ripest target - the European Union and it's vision of a borderless continent.

Conservative ministers are briefing that the 2019 European Parliament Elections will be the biggest protest vote in history, and they might not be wrong about that. But that only adds to the danger - with voters choosing the far right to convey dissatisfaction, they risk the creation of a powerful far right bloc in the European Parliament.

Vote Remain, Vote Green, Vote Liberal

For progressives, the options are fairly straight forward. This isn't a second referendum. This election has lasting consequences if Brexit doesn't happen - elected representatives taking seats in the European Parliament on our behalf, voting on the European agenda for the next five years.

There are two parties in these elections that have clear pro-European and pro-Remain credentials, and who are well organised with other parties across Europe to have a big influence on the future policy. Labour is neither of them - though well connected, it's stance towards Europe has long only been about convenience.

The obvious party are the Liberal Democrats. They are a part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, led by Guy Verhofstadt - one the European Parliament's most recognisable figures - and the public clearly know that a commitment to Europe is one of their primary positions.

The Liberal Democrats are moderately progressive, but mostly lean towards the centre and compromise positions when in power - indeed, their European group includes plenty of liberals who would be comfortable with David Cameron's 'modernised' pro-Business, pro-Market Conservative Party.

The less obvious of the two parties, but growing into becoming a real factor, are the Green Party. Consistently pro-European, and well-organised across the continent alongside other Green Parties and small progressive parties, this election is their chance for a big breakthrough in Britain.

Green parties have been making headway in a number of countries, such as in Germany where they now have 67 seats in the Bundestag and have polled above 20% of the vote - ahead of the old Social Democrats - heading towards taking over as the party of the progressive opposition. Further headway has been made at the regional level in a number of countries.

A Cure for Toxicity

Something needs to change, because the political atmosphere has become stiflingly toxic. In Britain, it has become hard to breathe in political spaces filled with the billious air of Brexit, that leaves no room for many more pressing matters.

I am honestly unsure that the Liberal Democrats can provide the kind of change that is needed. I might have thought differently ten years ago. There is a pro-Business, pro-Market, wing to the party that wields a lot of influence where it matters, and keeps dampening the party's more radical voices.

The Green Party on the other hand, unsullied by government and toxic alliance, could inject a new energy into progressive politics - if they can make a big breakthrough. It may be time for something new, to sweep away the old. But that, first, has to find a place to start, a way into the public consciousness.

One thing I am sure of, is that the far right will not give people what they desire. Their path is only to more division, more suffering - because that is what feeds the far right machine, what gives the far right support and power.

In this election you get one vote, though the system is a little more proportional than Britain's first-past-the-post. Tactical voting is not a priority, with turnout much more important - and convincing people to turn out and vote for a progressive and Remain candidate, prepared to work hard in Brussels. For progressive voters, you need to consider who you want to represent you in the EU, and which party can do that while sending the right message at home.

Local Elections 2019: What the most vulnerable need from their councillors

On Thursday, most of the English councils outside of London will hold their local elections. These elections range from a third of seats on the council to whole council elections, meaning a lot of local areas could see control of their councils switch to different parties.

Considering the policies of the governing Conservatives, the austerity they have reigned over that has hurt local areas badly, and the backlash being predicted, the fact that they have the most seats and councils to defend - more than twice second place Labour - could make Thursday a damaging night for them.

That would be good news for the most vulnerable in our society, who desperately need representatives in local government who will push back. And there are some crucial issues that need outspoken councillors.

Just this week came the news that funding to help the homeless has plummeted under the Tories. With resources stretched by the cuts, it's the most vulnerable who lose out. Local government spending on single homelessness fell by £5bn over the last decade, even as rough sleeping rose by well over 100% - with new funding failing even to cover cuts.

That desperate situation for the working age poor is matched by the hit that social care for the elderly has taken under the watch of the Conservatives. Bailing on their centrepiece manifesto reforms, the Tories simply haven't arrested this dangerous situation - and while debate over the way forward continues, the care sector is collapsing.

At the core of the problems facing local communities are the cuts inflicted by the Tories at Westminster. On all of these issues, Westminster government holds decision-making on funding in an iron grip. And, right now under the Tories, that power is being used to choke off redistribution from richer to poorer communities.

The relationship between central government and local government cannot continue to be top down. Westminster needs to be a coordinator, helping local governments work together on mutual projects and for mutual positive outcomes. It seems unlikely that we will get that as long as the Tories and Labour keep their grip on power.

While Labour do at least pursue redistribution, in parts of Britain their local government presence is so powerful that the party is practically indistinguishable from the local administrative structures. One party states are as dangerous as states built on top down authority that divide communities against each other. We need new options. The most vulnerable need new options.

For progressives, the priority for now is ousting the Tories wherever possible. Labour's primary pitch, of introducing the Preston model to other councils is a sound proposition. But the reluctance of the party to accept pluralism means in the long run that party also has to be challenged.

So look closely at your councillor candidates and consider: how they will deal with the issues pressing upon the most vulnerable? Are willing and able to push back against Westminster? Will they open up local government to more voices? And when you've made up you mind, get out their and vote!

Employment isn't a simple matter - the numbers hide complex picture of poverty, precarity and the need for opportunity

The government's favourite fallback when criticised is to turn to the employment figures. Theresa May pulled the figures out at last week's PMQs, saying that she noticed the opposition leader hadn't raised the subject with her.

But the government's excitement about those figures is hard to square with the reality of life in this economy for ordinary workers.

The fact that the dominant corporate culture in Britain sees it as a viable strategy to lay off thousands of workers in 'restructuring', explains a lot about how most of the people in poverty in Britain can be in work - suffering in poverty despite having paying jobs.

Employment may be high, but big questions remain about the quality of employment. Retail may not be work that produces the greatest satisfaction, but it does provide opportunities for those who need them most - like a ladder to management experience and the stability that can provide.

The latest threat to that slender social mobility ladder is the restructuring happening at Tesco, where unions are afraid that as many of 15,000 jobs are going to be cut, some two dozen per store - more job losses at the firm, that follow on from some ten thousand others lost in the last four years.

Uncertainty and precarity are becoming the norm. Average wages remain below what they were in 2010. Income equality in Britain continues to decline. And amidst these pressures, the welfare safety net has been diminished. This is the pattern that lies hidden behind the employment figures.

Over time, of course employment won't stay the same. Some kinds of work will disappear and others will replace them. Perhaps, over time, work itself will change beyond recognition - to no longer be the 'work to live' system we are familiar with. But it will change.

It isn't good enough for Conservatives to preach innovation, to preach flexibility. That approach is leaving people with no stability and rising anxiety. Trapped in a precarious working life that isn't rewarding people. There has to be a better way.

Brexit looms, hovering menacingly over everything, threatening to diminish workers rights and job security, ordinary people need reassurances about the future. The old ladders to prosperity for working class people are being kicked down.

It's no good talking up the figures when thousands are facing layoffs. What people need is to be able to depend upon practical support when they lose work, and the same as they try to develop the skills to find a new path forward. To know that there are paths they can take, opportunities for a stable life.

That means more intervention and more guidance. More communication, to let people know where the paths are and what people will need on those roles. This is only the beginning of what is needed, but in a time of crisis you have to deal with the emergency first.

Mandates and Majorities: May's abuse of the FTPA to protect her minority government has broken the Parliamentary system

Theresa May continues to cling to power. Despite promising to resign to retain hold of the leadership of her party, despite being defeated on her Finance Bill, despite a historic defeat in Parliament, May utterly refuses to compromise or alter course.

You would think, from her actions, that the Prime Minister sits on an electoral majority with a clear mandate. She doesn't. She heads an internally divided minority government, with no electoral majority - which means she has no mandate, let alone a clear one.

And the arithmetic of Parliament is divided too. Parties are divided and across a number of different lines, not just Brexit vs Remain. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to accept the fundamental fact that Parliament is right to rein her in and take a leading role - instead calling them rebels and traitors.

The big question is how can Theresa May act like she has so much more power than she does? That would be the disastrous affect that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTPA) has had on the constitution.

When it was first introduced, there were positives. A useful restriction on executive power, such as limiting government abuse of it's executive powers over calling elections brought by setting fixed dates for elections - and how restricting how they could be called.

During the Coalition, this was intended to keep the alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats stable - with neither party, especially the Lib Dems, able to hold the other hostage to an election over policy squabbles.

But there have been unintended consequences. The act has extraordinarily empowered minority governments, changing the conditions of a government's fall to make it overwhelmingly difficult for Parliament to vote out a minority government.

This has become a crucial factor in the present consitutional crisis. Theresa May cannot govern, especially on the key piece of her legislative agenda, and yet cannot be toppled. Using the FTPA, she has near single-handedly brought the functioning of the Parliamentary system to a halt.

The ridiculous nature of what the FTPA and May's use of it have done is shown in how her government survived last week: despite the largest margin of defeat for any government on Parliamentary record, a critical and embarrasing disaster, she survived the vote of no confidence the following day.

How? Thanks to the Act, she was able to separate her key legislation from confidence in the government - literally, separate being able to competently govern from whether or not they should govern. As a result, her own MPs rejected her Brexit deal in a humiliation, demonstrating their inability to govern, but then voted to keep themselves in power.

This needs to be addressed by future governments. It cannot be that a government can stand, despite dmonstrably being unable to govern. While that is a common occurance in the American system, it is not in the Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy - where the fundamental principle has always been that a government that cannot govern, does not.

Without a majority, Theresa May doesn't have a mandate. She doesn't have the authority to force through her deal - especially when it has been rejected multiple times. However, unfortunately, the Parliamentary system has been hindered and restricted in it's ability to prevent her pursuing this course.

The Alternative Year: Behind the facade, the reality of Conservative government is finally laid bare with smoke and mirrors dismissed

It seems each year in recent times seems keen to outdo the last for crises and calamity. It is a long few years now that progressives have been looking for the tide to change, for a chance to get Britain moving forward again.

Looking back over 2018, our focus was on laying bare the reality of a living under a Conservative government - and how the realities of that are finally becoming visible, released by time, escaping from behind excuses and scapegoats.

Here is our rundown of 2018 in British politics as we saw it and wrote it - and as we see it informing us for the new year ahead.

Ten Years of Conservative Government

The year 2018 marked ten years of Conservatives in government and what that really means is becoming all too clear. Hiding behind the fallout of the Financial Crisis of 2008 that happened on Labour's watch, the Tories always had a handy excuse to deflect criticism.

But it has been a full decade now - and for many, it will be marked as a lost decade. Child poverty and working poverty have risen, hand in hand. Homelessness and indebtedness have risen. Padding out employment statistics has been prioritised over wellbeing, as pay stagnates and precarity rises.

Furthermore, the privatisation and outsourcing drive is being exposed. Plush contracts handed out to private sector profiteers have done little for services, while greedy executives extract public wealth - even as the companies themselves fall apart in a poorly run shambles.

The structure of our services, both public and private, has been allowed to crumble to enrich some few well-connected individuals. The few who profit from hastily assembled companies acting as little more than a front to funnel profit - even as the work is done by largely the same people who have always done the work - before being left to crumble.

Smoke and Mirrors

What the crumbling reality of Britain under the Tories is showing us - beyond the poor state of things under their method and ideology - is how much effort is dedicated to surface phenomena. To keeping up a veneer, rather than dealing with the real, underlying issues.

The 'Northern Powerhouse' is one such issue. Funding shortfalls, cancelled upgrades, rail timetable chaos, entire rail franchises in chaos. The Conservatives time and again put their faith in an empty branding exercise - brands like the 'Northern Powerhouse', and the 'Midlands Engine'.

Empty words. Housing had faced the same trouble. Slogans like 'Right-To-Buy' and 'Help-to-Buy' are a temporary fix, meant to rally someone else to invest so the Tory government doesn't have to - temporary measures that often make things worse in the long run. Look at local government.

From the devolution to regional mayors, to housing policies, to social care, local government has been cut out of the loop and ended up with less funding, even as it has felt greater weight dropped on to it's shoulders - more burdens, more less power and money with which to act.

Too Much Fiction, Not Enough Fact

The Conservatives have hidden so much of this beyond a wall fact-less, and often tactless, political debates. Being well informed is crucial to making good decisions, but the media make that so much harder every day - itself embattled and feeling political and competitive pressures.

So we took to debunking a few of the best laid myths.

We looked at the far right, it's rise and how it has been pinned to the working class - of claimed to be some great movement of the people. The reality is exposed as the far right being a nearly exclusive middle class ideology - one rooted in the fear of the loss of privilege.

This was as true for Brexit as it was for Trump.

Whether those voting for Brexit could see what the future outside the EU would hold or not, you can see this privilege in what a hard Brexit would mean. We laid out the reality of 'WTO terms' as accelerating, not ending, the decline of UK sovereignty at the hands of globalism - for which the WTO was founded to be the point of the spear.

The poorest haven't been given share-enough of the spoils of globalisation and Brexit isn't going to change that. Nor, really will Remaining - not by itself. Without a radical will to reform, all we have in either scenario stagnation and inequality. But while Europe provides framework to try and build something better, Brexit strands us.

Looking forwards

There were hopeful sparks too, in 2018. As hard as that is to believe. The #MeToo movement, the Women's March, and other events, occuring so close to together have the makings of a pivotal historical moment - an expression of women's power, both resistence and progress.

Wars, cold and hot, that have been fought for decades also saw an interruption for peace. Historic cooperation in Korea, a peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Basque paramilitary group ETA finally dissolved, Greece and North Macedonia settled a naming dispute.

These events represent a cropped image of 2018. But what they also represent are slow burning, long negotiated, discussions finally bearing fruit. Hate produces only a brief flash. Rash action, the product of rash thought, puts down no roots. Hate only lasts if we embrace it.

The fight for justice and peace puts down deep roots. Even in a world on fire, there comes a fresh flowering. The New Year will bring opportunities to get back to looking after the common good. The first step towards that isn't a big one. All you need to do is care and get informed.